|
___________________________________________ The Hard Cost and Reality of DensificationDevelopers and organizations that promote development love to tell you about the benefits, whether real or imagined, of more and more and more density when they argue against requiring new development to pay its own way. But their arguments are based on pure financial self interest. And they are, for the most part, nonsensical. The issue here is who pays for the infrastructure needed to serve more development, such as water, sewer, roads, bike paths, parks, recreation centers, libraries, municipal buildings, and open space. There are only two choices —
Plan A: the developers who are profiting from the development pay the costs they are imposing on the rest of us, which is fair, since they are creating the need and so should pay the costs of maintaining levels of service. Or, Plan B: the costs can be laid off on the citizens who already live there. Then we will either pay through higher taxes and/or pay through living with traffic jams, watering restrictions, more polluted air, general overcrowding, etc. Developers want to foist these costs onto the general public for one reason, and one reason only — to increase their PROFITS. It’s as simple as that. And they can make thousands or tens of thousands of dollars more per unit by doing this. (We’ve seen profit numbers over $100 per square foot of development.) Given the price levels of housing in Boulder, it’s very clear that even if developers had to pay full cost impact fees, they would still make a bundle. All charging these fees would do is (1) force the price of land down somewhat, lowering the profits of land speculators, and (2) also force down the profits of developers, who would still make a bundle, just a smaller one. And there is plenty of room to lower profits without making it uneconomic to build. No one will argue that jamming more people into the same space is cheaper than fewer. But in a place like Boulder, where we are land limited, other than by converting the airport or Area III into housing, the issue is not whether we can fit more people into the same space, but whether we want to live with that overcrowding. Anyone who gets out in Boulder knows the reality. We have congested streets most of the day, with almost every car trip hitting one or more traffic lights where we have to wait multiple cycles. We can’t find a place to park in many areas downtown any more. Riding bikes is dangerous on streets because of traffic levels. Our air quality has deteriorated — just go up Flagstaff and look down at the local smog on any summer day. Want to recreate? Try going to the North Boulder Rec Center on a weekend morning. There is almost no parking available, and the gym is full of bodies. Want to visit Open Space? Well, solitude is not going to be your experience, unless you’re willing to take a long hike. Certainly don’t try Mt. Sanitas — it’s jammed much of the time. And until a year or so ago, we did not have development fees to pay for rec centers’ expansions, just for example. And we have none for our Open Space. As to the shibboleth of development fees promoting sprawl, that is in direct contradiction to the developers’ argument that more density is cheaper than less. Here’s why: If we charged developers for the costs they impose on the rest of us, whether they develop in a denser or less dense way, according to their own argument, their development impact fees would be LOWER if they built more densely. So they would naturally choose that route because they would make MORE profits. All this points out the ridiculous nature of their arguments. SO MAKE GROWTH PAY ITS OWN WAY!!! It’s as simple as that! For those registered to vote in Boulder: To sign the petition GROWTH SHALL PAY ITS OWN WAY, please text Emily Reynolds at 303-875-7514 for the next location to gather signatures. We will frequently be at the Saturday Farmers Market downtown Boulder.
|
